Bishop introduces Repeal Amendment

Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.

Today, Congressman Rob Bishop, Co-Chair of the 10th Amendment Task Force proposed the above amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Repeal Amendment.

This amendment would provide states with the authority to “repeal any federal law, regulation, tax, or unfunded mandate if two-thirds of the States are in agreement.” The Repeal Amendment would provide a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations the public opposes.

Outgoing Utah House Speaker, Dave Clark, was with Congressman Bishop this morning. “On every policy issue Washington, D.C. has faced they have had a choice between more freedom or more government. Time after time, on issue after issue, they have chosen the path of more government over more freedom,” he said. “That is not the approach that made America prosper. The Repeal Amendment may be the only way to push back the federal government’s encroachment on sovereign states rights.”

Congressman Bishop pointed out that the U.S. Constitution, as drafted by the Founders, designed a system that created a balance of power between state and national government, but whose balance has been eroded.

“I’m proud to sponsor the Repeal Amendment in Congress because it is a simple, transparent tool that can help restore balance and reduce the concentration of power in Washington,” Bishop added. “While the Repeal Amendment will not immediately turn the tide of a power-hungry, overreaching national government, it is an arrow in the quiver of states and a solid first step that can be taken to begin restoring the balance of power our Founding Fathers intended when they drafted the Constitution.”

Isn’t what is described supposed to be the opperating ideal behind the senate. That the two senators are supposed to represent the interests of the states concerning federal law. Whereas the house represents the people ? I know it’s been 20 years since I learned this.

I agree that more ability to over ride lame duck, corporate driven legislation that bloats our deficit is great and am all for it.

Any legal process that facilitates states to take back usurped powers is a good idea. States will never get Senate representation back. This amendment would be a similar mechanism though. In our nanny nation it would be very hard getting it passed in 2/3 states. If it did, it would be very difficult to get 2/3 states’ legislatures to vote to repeal any given act of Congress. With that said, it would be very fun to try!

You are right. The Senate was designed to represent the states. However, when the 17th Amendment took the power away from the state legislators to vote for the Senators and put the vote in the hands of the people. It took away that states voice in the federal government.

Personally, I would rather see an amendment that would repeal the 17th Amendment. However, I think that would be a tougher road to travel than Bishop’s amendment. Hence some of my reservations with this idea.

That is all fine and dandy but the Supremes will just throw it out. Anybody in the Legislature read Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958)? How does the Legislature get around Judicial Review? If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land then the law is above the Supreme Court. But, Justice Marshall put the Supreme Judiciary above the law of the land. In essence, he declared authority that was declared by a higher power, then had the audacity to claim that the Surpemes were the first to declare such authority. If the Court has the authority to tell you it is the supreme law of the land then they have the authority to tell you what isn’t. All these 10th Amendment representatives, “citizen legislators”, fail to appreciate the magnitude of the Judiciary. Unless the Executive refuses to enforce a Judicial edict the Supremes will stop such measures in their track. According to Justice Marshall, Judicial decisions are supreme above the other branches. This is not written anywhere in the Constitution. Marshall shrewdly made this up.